Volume One, Issue 11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ August, 1997
 

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
 

Roman Catholics, instead of accepting the truths of the Gospel by faith, seem to need visual stimulation as is evident in their vast, ornamented and statued cathedrals-- monuments to man's religiosity and superstition. They base their whole tradition for having a Pope (Papa, or father), or visible representation of Father God, upon this misunderstood passage. Simon Bar-Jona had the correct answer to our Lord's question, and so, they believe that Jesus bestowed upon him a place of honor and authority as progenitor of popes for all generations to be earthly heads of the Church. When challenged that only Jesus is the Head of the Church, they wrest this passage into service as a proof text for this papal office which became established after the dust settled between various warring princes of Catholicdom. The Bishop of Rome emerged from the fray as the dominant Bishop over all Christendom. The Pope's policy became dogma for the rest of the far-flung Church; the Bishop of Rome had bloodily won the right to set the standard of orthodoxy in doctrine and practice. None dared contradict him on the pain of excommunication or worse.
 

Under this feudal, hierarchical system the priesthood was stolen away from the Body of Christ as a whole (1Peter 2:9) and bestowed upon certain individuals as a reward for rendered services (to the corrupt church, not the Lord). Scripture study was taken away from the masses 'lest they become deceived by the study of Word of God in their ignorant condition'. Thus a 'clergical' class of believer evolved having dominion over the 'laity', and ministry became warped into something ordained of man and not God. To be a servant of God under the Roman paradigm, one had to bow first to the dictates of man. Latin became the universal (catholic) language of worship; Roman Catechism became the only acceptable doctrine; and death by torture-- ostensibly to purify the soul from its passion for heresy-- the eventual fate of objectors. And objectors there were, for vile beliefs such as purgatory, earning one's salvation by works (and not even worthy works, but superstitious activities, i.e. rosary beads), idolatry disguised as saint veneration, the prostituting of indulgences for early release from [the imaginary] purgatory, celibacy of the priesthood (forbidding to marry-- 1Tim 4:3), abstaining from certain foods on certain days (1 Tim 4:3), worshipping Jesus' mother as 'the Mother of God', and a host of other spiritual abominations perpetrated in the Lord's name. Among the masses, the true Faith all but disappeared. But, there was always a remnant, loving truth and holding fast to the Faith as delivered to the apostles: sometimes hidden within the corrupt thing that called itself the Church, sometimes outside-- such as the persecuted anabaptist traditions, carried on in such groups as the Mennonites and Huguenots, who were the true Church of their day.
 
 

The power of the Roman church was (and is) the same spirit that indwelt the Roman Caesars, and is an Antichrist, as is evidenced by the popes as they politically consolidated their power and exterminated all opposition, as did their pagan predecessors. God ordained the church to be under the Headship of His Son, a community of equals with different gifts and callings to promote the common good. Greedy, power-mongers entered like wolves in sheep's clothing and made themselves lords over God's heritage. Papal infallibility, though not official until much later, was nonetheless practiced from about the third century, spreading the poison of corrupted Christianity wherever the Roman church system took root. Today masses believe the mission of Jesus was merely to cause priests to dress in up in 'petticoats' when they prayed, and to give us Easter and Christmas holidays. Despite the obvious consequences of departing from Scripture, millions of Catholics point to the above passage and state that as their base for establishing an absolute, central authority over Christendom.
 

The Lord Jesus never intended for any one man, or group of men, or local church, to have the lordship over His Bride. The original apostles were commissioned by the Lord Jesus, and later ones by the Holy Spirit, to establish churches one to a town or city, with a plurality of elders overseeing the meeting of the needs of the flock as servants, not overlords. Nowhere do we see recorded in the book of the Acts, the blueprint of the Church, where one local church rises to be the dominant, all authoritative, mother church. The Acts 15 incident, where the issue of Gentile qualifications to be considered as true believers, was conducted in Jerusalem only because that was where the Judaizers had come from. The apostles and elders took the issue to its roots. It was not because Jerusalem was acting as a Mother church, but because Jerusalem was where the trouble-makers had come from. The eldership at Jerusalem was required to use whatever disciplinary actions were necessary, and to notify the whole Church at large that any rebellious teachers coming from them were not to be sanctioned.
 

The apostles were appointed to the task of keeping the Church pure in her teaching and living, but not by having a permanent church of their own to base their operations from. The churches the apostles established were to be autocratic, that is, ruling themselves by the elders rising up from within, only occasionally with elders coming in from elsewhere (Acts 18:18-19). The reason for this is manifold. Firstly, to have a dominant church ruling over lesser churches necessitates a dominant eldership ruling over lesser elders. But there is to be no such dominance in the Body of Christ. Even though apostles (extra-local ministries) are given the greatest authority, they cannot demand obedience above the local eldership. No man is allowed to think of himself as the head of the church! It is blasphemy for the regent of a nation to call him/herself the 'Head of the Church of _______'. If it is a true church, there is only one possible Head (Col. 1:18), Christ Jesus. This is, perhaps, why the heads of the beast government in Rev. 13 are 'covered with the names of blasphemy'. It is blasphemy to take a title unto oneself that belongs only to God. This is true of Roman Catholicism as well as Protestant denominations and synods.
 

Secondly, the Lord protects His Church from going into deception en masse by the rule of the Holy Spirit in each local congregation That Roman Catholicism has so permeated the world with its nefarious doctrines is proof enough that churches are to be independent and autocratic. This is so the whole Church doesn't fall under the spell of some Jim Jones or David Berg (Children of God cult.). Apostles, as chief authorities, are to visit various churches, but their authority is limited to appeal. The resident elders , if wise, will recognize whether the apostle is a deceiver or is speaking of the Spirit of God, and act accordingly. Deception is much more easily dealt with on a local level than a National or International one.
 

Thirdly, the church needs local prayer support to deal with its particular problems brought on them by the local powers and principalities. Just as Daniel was informed that holy angels wrestled with fallen angels to control the decisions of the king (Dan. 11:1), so too, today, that conflict goes on in every government, on all levels. This is why believers are commanded to pray for our government officials (1 Tim. 2:1-2). There is a spiritual war going on over the decisions lawmakers make daily. Who but the local people under their own local governments know the full ramifications of the decisions being wrestled over. A decree from a mother church a thousand miles away would have no bearing on local events and would be moot at best. This is also why it is not scriptural for congregations to draft pastors from other, extra-local areas. There is to be but one church in a local area, and all the believers there are members of that one church. Together with all believers worldwide, these local churches comprise the International Body of Christ. God recognizes no other division in Christ's Body except that of locality, neither should we. There may be many meeting places as expressions of that one local church, such as various house churches or cell groups in larger towns and cities, for instance, but every believer is to be associated with other believers in that locality, with one Body recognized, one Spirit obeyed, one Hope clung to, one Lord Jesus worshipped and believed on, one Faith subscribed to, one Baptism experienced by all, under the one God and Father of those who are in the truth (Eph. 4:3-6).
 

Fourthly, there is the question of maturity levels. Being an elder in San Francisco's church does not automatically make him an elder in Chicago. The Lord established, through the apostles, those who should be the elders of Antioch. Those men knew the spiritual, political and natural situation in Antioch and as such could pray, teach and counsel wisely. An outsider coming in from Thessalonica would not know the various issues and spirit overlords oppressing both the community and the church, and so might not qualify as an elder able to give wise counsel for some time. Back home in Thessalonica they might have been among the more mature spiritual leaders, but not necessarily so in Antioch. An elder, by definition, is merely one who is older that the rest. The elder among a group of eight year olds is the nine year old. Among eighty year olds, the elder is eighty-one years old. Spiritual maturity is relative from place to place, so an elder in Houston might be a babe in St. Paul. The Lord, to protect His church from the abuse of immature rulers, patterned the Church to be both local and International at the same time, with nothing in between. International ministries such as apostles were never to build up their own following, but were to turn all the benefit of their work over to the local church elders to provide and care for. The local elders were to comply with and support the apostles, but the apostles were never to force their opinion, letting it be the work of the Spirit that brought conviction. Following this ingenious pattern, the Church, as a whole, would never have been infiltrated successfully by deceivers, but would have provided for apostles to go to trouble spots and deal with heretics, as in 3 John, vs 10. Elders and/or churches that refused true apostles would suffer the consequences of their pride and rebellion and soon disintegrate, allowing for true elders to arise again and lead the local church in truth. Heresies would have been short lived, local affairs, never afflicting the whole Church like a plague. But carnal mankind, under the influence of evil spirits, devised a method for control and profiteering over God's heritage through central authority.
 

The Lord condemned Nicolaitanism in the Revelation, ( 2:6; 15 ). Two separate churches had fallen under the spell of this Nicolas, Ephesus and Pergamum. We are not told specifically what Nicolaitanism was, nor are historians very helpful, for the group was short-lived ( the Lord's plan works if follow it) and left no definitive records. However, we may be justified in deducing from the meaning of the name what Nicolas taught and practiced. Nicolas is from the Greek, Nikos, meaning victory, and Laos which means people. So, Nicolas means victory, which perhaps can also be construed as dominion--over the people. Thus, it may be that Nicolaitanism was having one supreme head over the people of the Church. Popery! Roman Catholicism! That it had spread to at least two of the churches in Asia Minor before the last apostle of the Lamb was dead is a clear indication that the spirit behind it was trying to pervert Christianity by linking local churches up into one, franchised entity, under one head other than the Lord Jesus. Jesus ordained for each local church to be independent as far as authority, but related to every other church as far as service and love and worship. Nicolas was defying this principle, and the Lord stated that He hated what was Nicolas was doing. Thus Nicolaitanism, like popery, besmeared the image of Christianity, forcing it into harlotry with another head than the One God ordained.

Modern Catholicism is not the only perpetuator of this defilement, however, for Protestantism, when it broke away from Romanism, did not return to the original pattern as found in the book of Acts, but spun off on its own, variational tangent, patterning itself after Romanism's hierarchy by keeping the class distinction between clergy and laity. Heads of State declared themselves to be head of the church in that state, often warring with Rome and each other. Protestants took this dividing away from the false church to even greater lengths, by dividing into more and more factions, each clinging to some small particle of restoration of truth, or new revelation, focusing on their discovery as the most significant issue. In this way, denominations excused their breaking off fellowship from other true believers over different emphases on the Word of God, drawing lines of demarcation that separated even the faithful. This system of popery is perpetuated in Protestantism via the synods and denominational schools, each pastor being under the 'headship' of the denominational councils and CEOs. whether it is a Pope and council of cardinals, or university Presidents, committees and synods, it makes little difference that Protestants have more truth and less error than Romanism, their system is still faulty, and is not the Church that God established. All of this is man's religion. Whatever is not of God is old wineskins.

So, back to our premise, if the Lord was not conferring upon Peter a perpetual Popehood, what does this statement to Peter mean?

Protestants, reacting against Romanism (despite their imitation of it), came up with an unusual twist to prove the Catholics wrong in their dogma about the Pope, they declare that Jesus was talking to Peter's statement, not Peter, when He said "... upon this rock I will build My Church....." When we actually consider this concept, it becomes more and more absurd. Who speaks to a statement? A statement is not a person that can be addressed and given promises! Yet Protestants persist in arguing that Jesus was saying that upon Peter's declaration of Him being the Messiah, the Church would be built. Jesus clearly was addressing Peter, giving him a nickname of significance-- "Rocky". Much like its connotation in our day of a tough, strong, deeply planted, immovable stalwart, so too, the Lord was declaring Peter's nature as a tough, immovable force to be reckoned with. Now the terms Jesus used have a slight difference. Thus, it reads "... thou art Peter (Gk-- petros, i.e. a piece of rock), and upon this rock ( Gk-- petra, i.e. a mass of rock) I will build my church. The difference is that Peter is being cast as a piece of the whole. Peter writes in his first epistle about the Church being comprised of living stone-- every believer is a living stone, and when we come together, we comprise the mass of living stones forming the rock mass of His Church ( 1Peter 2:5). Clearly the Lord gives His prophetic proclamation to Peter, not Peter's statement, that His Church (the mass of stones) would be built upon him (a piece of stone). We have already seen how impossible it is that Peter was being named Pope, so what was the Lord saying? It is similarly errant to think that the Lord was personally addressing a statement, so what was does it mean?

Let's go back to the situation to understand the setting, and what the Lord is promising. As they journeyed, the Lord wanted to know what His disciples had heard about Him. Who were people saying He was? Why did the Lord require this information from them? Didn't He already know all things? Probably not. He knew only what the Spirit spoke to Him via the words of wisdom and knowledge at a given moment, while at other times He was as limited in His humanity as any of us, and needed to use the normal methods of cognizance we all use. By the Spirit, Jesus knew His time on earth was drawing to an end, and His disciples needed to be prepared for the horrible things that were going to happen to Him, lest they become totally disheartened, lose hope and fall away at His crucifixion. Jesus also knew that the multitudes were not to be trusted, no matter what they thought of Him, for they were fickle, and would just as soon cry "Crucify Him" as "Hosanna, Son of David." He needed to know how close they were to perceiving His actual identity, and gauge His timing of going to Jerusalem for the finale of His earthly ministry by the notoriety and furor connected with mass opinion over Him.

Various disciples reported what they'd heard: He was a prophet, He was Elijah, He was John the Baptist back from the dead (to haunt Herod). None of these reports were the truth. It was evident that the majority of people didn't perceive Who He really was. Then, changing emphasis, Jesus wanted to know if His own disciples knew who He was. If the multitudes hadn't understood by His fulfillment of scripture, His ability to perform miracles and give profound teachings, it was because the Holy Spirit had withheld it from them. They would never knowingly crucify their Messiah; but they would clamor to crucify someone who had gotten their hopes up, and then failed to live up to their expectations. It required a revelation from the Holy Spirit to recognize Him then as much as now. No one can know who the Son is except the Father show him, and the agent used in this revelation is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has come to bear witness to the truth, and in Jesus' case He was the Truth personified. Yet no one seemed to know Him. It was not time for the masses to know Who he was. But what of His disciples? They were the seed of the church, the repository of all His personal attention and teaching that the masses were not privy to. Had the Holy Spirit revealed His true identity to them yet?

We don't know how long the embarrassed silence was that followed this question, but we can imagine the sheepish looks they were casting back and forth at each other across the campfire, each afraid to state the obvious, fearing that it might possibly be blasphemy to call their own beloved Rabbi the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Perhaps none of them wholly accepted the implications of it yet, even though Jesus had hinted at, demonstrated, and never denied it though both man (Matt. 9:27) and spirit (Mark 1:24) bore witness to Him. Finally Peter could not let the obvious go unsaid any longer. "You are... the Christ, Son of the Living God!" He finally took the bold step to publicly proclaim what he had previously surmised privately. It took an act of the Holy Spirit to bring Simon Peter to the place where he was willing to own publicly what he believed privately. By this, Jesus knew who was hearing the Holy Spirit's voice. Simon, whose very name means 'hearing', had heard the truth in his inner man, and was convinced of its reality enough to speak out and take responsibility for what he believed. This was a man who, though there was no evidence of it yet, would become rock-solid, because he had an aptitude to hear the voice of the Father via the Spirit. Without the activity of the Holy Spirit in the inner man there is no life. Being born again, raising up the Church, knowing the Lord Jesus and coming to the Father must be initiated and completed by the Spirit. Because he had spoken out, Peter was singled-out to the Lord as the man to leave in charge when He returned to His Father's right hand. Peter could hear the Spirit, and would serve both as the leader and prototype servant of the Church. Not as the first in a long line of succession of Popes, but as the first man to walk in the Lord's pattern for the Church. A pattern needs to be established but once. Peter was the mold, the 'cookie cutter' template God would use to establish the pattern. Peter was told he would be sifted like wheat (Luke 22:31-32), but after he became converted (returned), he was to strengthen his brethren (fellow apostles who were likewise sorely tried). Jesus was leaving Peter in charge, because he had demonstrated the capacity to hear the Spirit's leading, even before Calvary and Pentecost.

So, rather than speaking to a statement, or ordaining a pope, Jesus was confirming Peter into a once-for-all--time leadership position of setting the paradigm of the ministry of the Church Age. Whatever patterns and practices the Church would embark upon would be done first by the prototype, Peter. Peter, hearer of the Holy Spirit, confessor to truth, was the first rock Jesus would lay first upon the foundation of which He Himself was the chief cornerstone. What did Peter do in this capacity? A careful reading of the first several chapters of Acts will reveal just how much the Lord used Peter to establish practice, doctrine and obedience to His will.

First to discern the will of the Lord from the Scripture, Acts 1:15-16.

First evangelism, preaching repentance in the name of Jesus, Acts 2:14, 38.

First miracle healing, Acts 3:6-7.

First arrest for preaching Gospel, Acts 4:3.

First defense of the faith before authorities, Acts 4:8 ff.

First word of knowledge, Acts 5:3

First act of Church discipline, Acts 5:9

First special miracles, Acts 5:15

First angelic deliverance from jail, Acts 5:19-29

First beating, Acts 5:40

First rejoicing at suffering with Christ, Acts 5:41

First apostolic journey to establish church outside of Jerusalem, Acts 8:14

First laying on hands to bestow baptism of HG; Acts 8:17

First resurrection, Acts 9:40

First direction-giving vision, Acts 10: 9-16

First evangelizing Gentiles, Acts 10:34-43

First baptizing Gentiles, Acts 10:48

First defense of preaching to Gentiles, Acts 11:4-18

First deliverance from persecution, Acts 12:11

First meeting angel, Acts 12:7

First to settle the debate on Church policy, Acts 15:7

First apostle to receive correction, Gal. 2:11.

So, we see that Simon Peter was given quite an arduous task. His was the privilege of setting the precedent for the whole Church and all its ministries down through the ages. It is all built upon his example. Whatever is given for the church to be involved in, Peter did it first. Others followed and often enlarged upon Peter's example, for instance, Stephen being martyred. Peter was not the first to die in the name of his Lord, but he set the pattern of being persecuted that led to Stephen's stoning. Paul filled up much more of the sufferings of Christ, preached to many more Gentiles, laid down more teaching and practice, but Peter did it first. John had greater revelations and visions, but Peter did it first. For us there is a safeguard in knowing this. Many wolves have entered the Church over the generations, bringing in heretical teachings and practices which could easily have been avoided had the church been aware of the role that Peter played as prototype. One question should be asked of any practice-- Did Peter set the example in it? If not, it is not likely to be of the Lord. For instance, when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit hit Azusa Street in the 1900's, all a believer had to do to search out the experience's validity was inquire whether Peter did it? Did Peter speak in tongues? Yes, then, if following the guidelines Peter used, in accordance with the whole of Scripture, such as Paul's writings (which, incidentally, Peter confirmed for the Church to follow-- 2 Pet. 3:15-16) it is safe. Were there special miracles? Did Peter do it? Yes. It's safe-- provided all other criteria fits. Lets try the recent phenomena of Holy Laughter. Did Peter do it? No! Then we need look no farther for evidence of validity. Peter did not set the precedent, and to pursue it further will only lead to deception.

Surely what the Lord spoke to Peter was of great significance, for immediately following that, Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter to bind and/or release on earth, and in heaven. In effect, to set the pattern for the Church.
 

© John MacLeod 1997